text:
Can we ask questions which could be meant to teach one a lesson?
Can we ask questions which could be meant to teach one a lesson? What is the rule, the purpose of questions in Dhamma-Practice?
Given that there have been ideas that "teaching" answers could harm the purpose of questions and answers, how about teaching-questions?
This includes questions where certain agendas, even for the benefits of those who are asked, could be supposed. Are such question good and supportive for you and for others?
Good for the community's purpose, whatever it might be?
Maybe it would be better to supply an example of what is meant by this.
So is there any fear that questioning each other back and forth, could maybe lead to loss of anything? Is it usual? Or is there a certain idea of "real" question in "real" world, with an "real" agenda? Or should it maybe be always clear, who is lacking (asking) in a certain issue and who is giving (answering)? Maybe a kind of receiver-giver, or teacher-student phobia could limit such ways.
And yes, also this question has many agendas on many levels.
Purpose of questions?
Practicing of questions in Dhamma-Practice?
General, seen for one self, guessed of others, traditional, possible use.

That was not the original question, but if you ask "yes" so if Upasaka likes to color it, he may color it proper and ask "Are we allowed by the moderators... to ask question which we might knew more or lesser the answer or should be write down everything we know about it before?" Sometimes it seam as if questions and answers are merely given as a raw material for the moderators to model them in the way it fits to thier thought, but only sometimes.

Are you saying I changed the meaning when I edited the grammar? I didn't intend to change the original meaning. If I changed the original meaning that would be because I misunderstood the original (but the edited version is close to what was written originally). Would you like to correct the edited version, to make it closer to what you wanted to ask?

I'm not sure I understand; the question might be clearer with some examples.
However I think there are at least three kinds of question which the community isn't eager to answer (nor, even, very willing to see asked, and answered by someone else):

Should Buddhism.SE be seeded with entry level questions?

Personally, I find seeded questions irksome; it's generally easy to see that the asker isn't really looking for an answer, so there is no sense of accomplishment in answering. It feels more like a chore, like editing Wikipedia or something.
I don't think we need to have answers to every question about Buddhism; we need answers to expert questions that one can't find by simply googling. I think we should keep pointing out when questions are LMGTFY-worthy, and encourage only questions that are truly looking for expert answers.

Actually the site does welcome beginners' questions too: but from beginners -- the consensus has been to discourage experts' seeding the site with questions.
Are we here to preach and make converts?
This answer which says,

Yes, we all are here to preach and make converts.

... was heavily downvoted. So questions whose purpose is to let you say,

My view of Buddhism is better than other views of Buddhism, isn't it?
My school of Buddhism is better than another school of Buddhism, isn't it?
Buddhism is better than other philosophies/religions/cultures, isn't it?
Buddhism wrong and is worse than another philosophy/religion/culture, isn't it?

... is likely to be closed.
See also What types of questions should I avoid asking? which includes, "your question is just a rant in disguise".
May I share my research, by posting questions on this site and self-answering them?

My vote would be "no": that this site is to ask questions and to get answers from other people.

To "enforce" or implement this policy we have to guess at the users' motives for asking a question.
In general, if you already know the answer then you shouldn't post the question.
These guidelines are not currently included in the site-specific Moderation policies for Questions; but they could be, in the future (if the community continues to agree with these policies / meta-answers).

Lets look out for samples.

@ChrisW I see the answer given by Ven. Yuttadhammo in your answer, Chris "Personally, I find seeded questions irksome...".  I also see this question posted by him: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11042/what-is-buddhism
Which neither you or any of the other moderators bothered to close. Andrei even answered it himself. So then what is this business of Samana Johann's question being closed? Is this fair, consistant moderation?

@Ryan I thought that was a real-world problem ("need a handout to give out at the club fair") --  conversely it's not clear why the Samana posted the 'dukkha' question (perhaps it was meant as an exercise for the users of this sites, whose purpose was to school users or grow the site). And in Yuttadhammo's question it's clear who the answers are meant to be for ("suitable to distribute to someone who knows nothing about the religion") -- conversely I wouldn't know how to answer the Samana's question (I don't find it plausible that he would be asking me to tell him about the First Noble Truth).

They are both let me Google that for you-ish questions, and both are asked by people who presumably know the answers to said questions, yes?  So then, it is appropriate for one to ask a question they know the answer to, on behalf of someone else, just so long as that someone else is someone who won't be reading the answer on this website? Andrei closed samanara johanns question on the basis that he already knew the answer. So at least be consistent.

Just to be clear though, you're saying it is OK to ask questions that one knows the answer to, just so long as the circumstances are deemed appropriate by the moderators?

@Ryan I was going to say, it's not clear whether you're asking: a) Was Yuttadhammo's question consistent with his policy? b) Are other moderators fair and consistent in implementing policy c) What Is policy d) How does policy inform our handling of the 'dukkha' question? -- Based on your subsequent comments I think you're mostly interested in b) i.e. moderators?

Given that two very similar questions were treated in polar opposite manners, that would seem to be what should be looked at.

@Ryan I tried to define my understanding of a moderator's job (i.e. my job) in this comment. That definition was OK (i.e., "that is what I am saying") but doesn't mention two further details: one is that moderators are also users, and they have (they are IMO allowed) a vote of their own; the other is that moderators watch each other (in comments to that question you can see that neither CrabBucket nor I chose to vote to reverse Andrei's vote, but we are waiting to see other people's votes),

I understand Chris, and I appreciate your impartial handling of this.

In reference to your comment of what you feel a moderators job should be, it seems the process is working backwards in this case, yes? And this was after the question had received several answers. So I still don't understand why closing it was necessary; any discussion of Dhamma that expands our understanding is good!

Thank you for your understanding and appreciation. @Ryan I didn't understand the question, i.e. the first sentence about "backwards", in your next (most recent) comment. Re, the second half of that comment, if you still want to ask about the specific ('dukkha') question can I recommend you start a different Meta topic (using the '[meta-tag:specific-question]' tag), to ask why it was closed, to ask whether other people agree it should be have been closed, and/or to ask suggestions on whether/how it can be edited to make it answerable? Also why do you want it open?

Also, do you agree with the following -- If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK.

I dont per say want it open; I just feel it should not have been closed in the first place, and I feel such moderation sets the precedence moving forward for similar behavior which could be detrimental to this community and the good it might serve others. And yes I do agree with this last comment :)

I also get the impression from Samana Johann that he is as open to learning from us as is he willing to share what he knows, which is why I feel this particular closing of his question was unwarranted


text:
Whats the different between censorship and moderation? How can one prevent to fall into this trap?
Moderating is a very common and popular word coming from making things moderate, humble. Yet moderating in action is mostly the opposite and often does not dear to act very unwholesome. If we look at it its not a little different to censure and control.
Having maybe sees such, how should, could one act so that simply never fall into this trap. What kinds of purposes should be avoided? Would simply stick to precepts help?
What are the unwholesome purposes of moderating? Which aspirations should be avoided when doing such a task in what ever surrounding one acts?
Are there some hints found in what is called mediation which is a alternative to judge?
What is required for a person to be able to moderate? Opinionlessness? Would such be a solution and foundation?

This looks like a reaction to my comment on this answer and does not seem to be directly connected with Buddhism per-se?

Also this thread has become more appropriate for chat so I'm going to move this off there so we can discuss more there as required

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Maybe two talks of Ajahn Chah are useful, for sure it not easy to see the different between ruling and moderating if defilements are the only reference: Not for Sure
As for the task people usually do, or think that they need to do when doing moderation job, they actually act as public prosecutor, judge and police in one person, which is common only in totalitarian regimes. Think about that. So just to speak about Moderation on a very conventional level.

Censorship is moderation that somebody disagrees with. :)

Mr Grimm might have meant, that moderation is a censorship some agrees with or should it mean that there has to be prejudice? Mr. Andrews thought might be based on certain ways of judgement, coming for decision making by dictators or by the mass of the crowd. Truth and moderation are how ever most far away of that, @AndrewGrimm. And to feel that a critic has the intention to make ones position for his own benefit, would cut you far off a possible try that someone tries to pull the stones, not even the dust, out of the eyes. Could.

I am just going to put something in here about moderation on the site and my view of it. All the moderators here do so on a voluntary basis and do not get paid or get any particular advantage from doing so. I think it's fair to say that everyone who has moderated the site at any point (that's 6 users past and present) has done so because they want the site to a good positive place for Buddhism Q and A.
That said - no one is perfect and we are all human beings. We have and will make mistakes and will continue to do so. But I really believe that everyone that moderates does it with the best of intentions. If anyone is hurt or offended by the action of a moderator then meta is the place for a discussion. If anyone wants to discuss the principles of moderation on the site (or I'll be honest generally I think) then again meta is the place.
Realistically, I don't think anyone is going to be falling over with gratitude for the moderators. But can I just say that I am grateful to the other moderators for keeping things positive. I have been by far the least active moderator over the last few months so I am really grateful to the others for keeping things going and going in a good direction.
This might be an off topic answer but this is the stuff that this post brings up for me so I wanted to write it in.
Be well everyone.

Ohh, its actually so sad, that such things are not seen as gratitude not to speak that if it would be a personal critic such could be good a matter of compassion as well. So don't worry, all in all, you make a real good job here far better then anywhere else. But as you said, not perfect yet, such should not be a notion of not possible to become such, or? And how could one without being pointed on the "dark" spots? Btw. do not justify things by saying, I do it volunteer. Neither would kamma care nor would it be elsewhere an excuse. Especially when you make things by heart, one is much more..!

Although I think in fact the question concerns some specific case... but because the title sounds as a general question I'll try to give a general answer
Nothing is constant (that's the main relation to the Buddha-dharma in focus here in Buddhism.SE); and you can be guaranteed that if you have only one (or more) constant rules, then someone some time must fall into that trap.
But I think, this is --more or less-- common sense with all people who have to do with creating rules and checking their observance.
The Buddha made his vinaya rules on concrete occasions and not as an ivory-tower, eternal, abstract system of paragraphs; and it is reported that shortly before his parinirvana he said, that "the minor rules" might be adapted if needed.
The uncertainty about, which rules were meant to be "minor" --according to the same transmission of reports--, caused the first council to decide to conserve the current state of rules ... but after one or two generations it was obvious this could/would no more be accepted or be put into practice for the greater(?) part of the sangha.
So from this so old and ancient example we can remember that trying to absolutely prevent misbehaviour by a constant rule will be futile. And this leads then to very interesting problems which we should solve for ourselves. One among of them is the problem of giving trust to someone: trusting that he/she does not intentionally behave badly even when I feel that something happened which "broke the rules" and disadvantaged me. This trust/trusting is of course easier in a sangha of small size, where each one knows each other, than in an international SE-community where anonymity is one overwhelming basic property (and only few members seem to achieve a sort of near-personal relations).
In short, to answer the generally formulated question: it is not possible to prevent that someone falls into that trap.

And to say something more than only such a specific answer: I think it is useful/helpful/wholesome to try and train to analyze oneself: to see whether one is (possibly) just cultivating the paradigm of mistrust - for example, formulating the title of the questions in a way as if it were somehow normal or commonplace or expectable, that distracting behaviour of the moderator (or of the poster, or whatever) occurs. Once you're already at this point, that you assume such a thing and state it as given, then --whether you know it or not-- you're introducing a basis of/for distrust into the community. And the source of such anonymous, under-surface emotion/paradigm of distrust shall later be very difficult to recover and to heal.
There was a story where even the Buddha could not resolve a conflict between two prominent members of his sangha (a holder of the suttas and a holder of the vinaya) and after a serious warning - which lead simply to nothing - he left the scene for some time in solitude in the forest: to let those bhikkus learn and experience the reaction of the laypeople and the alm-givers, to such self-representation of the sangha and its inability or even unwillingness to remove/resolve dissent and conflicts.
(I'm a bit in a hurry and must stop my answer here, possibly I can come back to this later/in the evening or tomorrow, sorry)

Your point on introducing a basis for distrust is very insightful, thank you

First of all Upasaka Gottfried is talking actually about "police" and does not go into the matter of the question, that points out that there is a different between judging and moderating, and second, when Upasaka introduces the matter of distrust, which is actually a matter of preoccupations, which have to be abounded on the Buddhist Path, is in modern psychology called victim blaming, regardless who blatant of subtle the reason might be.

There are of course also fundamental reason to mistrust in certain areas. For example people who do not keep precepts, have not undertaken them. Who ever, is a sign of a very poor society, to first "award" judges, second, judge on subjective feelings, third judge on preoccupations, fourth avoid to use the tool of counter questioning & fifth, to put it under a label that causes additional suggestion by using an image of being moderate. So all in all a kindergarten mentality of use to amass fools but for sure neither practicing n. already wise people. All such thing would do, is cut off yourselv

"but because the title sounds as a general question" this insight, even reduced of the sounds, would be the foundation of moderation: "Since there is a general question behind" would be more proper, but maybe one would make it moderate, so that moderators would not feel offended what thinking there judgement, that it is a meta-topic would be hardly wrong.

Moderating is a very common and popular word coming from making things moderate, humble.

I prefer to think of it as, not making things moderate but as keeping things moderate.
Also it isn't keeping other things moderate, it's a form of self-moderation.
This site was (the people on this site were) moderate to begin with, before I came along. I don't make them (I don't cause them to be) moderate. Because most users are already moderate, this site is moderate by default: moderation is its natural state.
Having experience of this site, I've formed an impression of how moderate people's posts usually are.
If, then, someone posts something that's beyond those norms, i.e. norms of:

Politeness
Being on-topic
Answering the question
Being a straight-forward answer, not a discussion or an argument

... then I inspect it closely to see whether I should intervene to correct it.
I'm grateful to moderators who intervene, and who don't intervene, who show restraint, who help to prevent or avoid useless argument on this site.
I'm especially grateful to the users who post helpful content. Keeping the site available for them is why I want the site to exist. A theory of what moderators do is described here.
I assume that the purpose of this site is approximately as stated in this post, i.e. ...

I haven't the time for or interest in debating Buddhism on the Internet - forums abound where one may do so elsewhere
What I was looking for here was a place where I could answer specific questions about topics on which I was somewhat of an expert, under the assumption that I (or anyone) could provide the single right answer to the question as a resource for Buddhists searching for answers online, without having to deal with (much) controversy or opinion.

... although with modifications (e.g. that most types of question with a few exceptions are acceptable, and anyone can answer). The Q&A format of the site helps to minimize controversy (i.e. people write their own answers without trying to criticize each other or each other's answers).

Yet moderating in action is mostly the opposite and often does not dear to act very unwholesome.

The moderators moderate every day.
By far the most frequent moderator action is ... nothing, nothing at all: read a new post and do nothing to intervene because (in their opinion, according to their judgement) it's already moderate.
Actions of a typical moderator include:

Do nothing
Upvote or downvote
Comment or edit
Edit the tags
Welcome a first-time poster

Other forms of moderator intervention ...

Closing a question
Deleting comments
Migrating a question
Deleting an answer
Banning a user

... are rare, even very rare. That's because almost all users already understand that they can and should post questions and answers which are on-topic, inoffensive, and answerable; and that this site is meant to be used as a Q&A site, and not as a forum for discussion.
The review tools, if you're interested, show how much (or how little) intervention there has been, in the last 30 days:

Posts (questions and answers) deleted
Posts (questions) closed or migrated
And you can see the "posts migrated" there.

The only 'moderated' content which users can't see are deleted comments (but comments aren't supposed to matter anyway, it's the Questions and Answers which are supposed to matter).

What are the unwholesome purposes of moderating?

Really?

Are there some hints found in what is called mediation which is a alternative to judge?

I think we all have both (mediation and judgement in moderation):

Mediation includes editing for clarity, posting comments, discussing in chat, using Meta to discuss and vote on general policies and any specific questions and answers
Judgement mostly includes showing good judgement, being moderate, and so on -- all users are expected to (and do) show good judgement

What is required for a person to be able to moderate? Opinionlessness?

I assume you mean, "to be a moderator" or "to moderate this site".
In my opinion some of the desirable characteristics are:

Is willing to do it (some people are asked but decline)
Long experience of the site, including what's been posted on Meta (knows what's expected)
A prolific user (visits the site frequently, knows the subject matter's essentials and/or in detail)
Tolerant (allow other users to ask about various forms of Buddhism, and give their own answers)
Cooperative and/or flexible (it may be better to avoid someone whose views are so fixed, so adamant, that they can't reach agreement with other moderators and users, i.e. the community)
Some history of posting on Meta (demonstrates an interest in the governance of the site)

Also, as Gottfried mentioned, I suppose "trust" comes into it somehow. I'm not trying to say that only moderators are trusted (that would be untrue) but I suspect that if you didn't trust a user then you wouldn't ask them whether they're willing to be one of the (temporary) moderators.

It's possible that 'Tolerant' isn't a virtue and that moderators should be stricter, to improve/ensure the consistency/quality of answers -- however this community didn't seem to want moderators making that kind of decision, e.g. in the answers to Moderating answers which don't answer the question?

Spelling, kind of expression, layout, moving obstacles aside, give smart inputs to moderate (in the sense of the word) situations where people itch there mirror image, technical stuff... being there when problem come up and most: being open to handle issues, where people in conflict, if there is such, address one and ask for moderation = mediation (since you are from Europe you would know this a little, outside, from Atmas experience, such is a foreign word). At least for the entertaining side of this job, your task is to entertain.

One might believe it or not, a moderator does not even need a gun (tools to delete and harm others and there "possession") and are able to make the whole crowd dance. So its more wise to see the word "moderator" as a entertainer job, and not that of a ruler, public prosecutor, legislative and executor in one person, yet a consumer one self. Such if called "warder" or "checker" would be at least more honest and would not draw a wrong picture above the meaning of such a job. One might not wounder, that here in Asia wards advertise there job calling it "santi sukha"...

A synonymous for the happiness of nibbana, to let people pay their deeds, believing that such comes for wards. As Atma just had translated a short essay on defilements, it might be worthy to go through it, to understand some wired modern understandings and concepts: On denying Defilement

And to counteract an additional miss-believe of the task and quality of a moderator: If he would simply act of how's the crowds mood here or there, he would just take on the task of a pause clown in the entertainment section, or the executor of the gladiators, to give entertainment, when the show loses the popularity. In fact a moderator needs to be very veracious, wick-witnessed and creative, what is all not of the primitive qualities of henchman of common defilements, but to point them visible out. So it would be not good to underestimate or wrongly missunderstand the value which stand b. s.

@SamanaJohann I guess your comments about guns and dancing and gladiators etc. was metaphorical; but I didn't understanding what you were talking about nor why.

"...The Dhamma is just like this, talking in similes, because the Dhamma doesn't have anything. It isn't round, doesn't have any corners. There's no way to get acquainted with it except through comparisons like this. If you understand this, you understand the Dhamma. 108

The verb "to moderate" and its gerund form "moderating" - is it currently used in any other context but "to moderate a web forum" in real life by native English speakers? Maybe in context of "moderating" a formal debate (such as the presidential debates)...
Can this Q&A site be considered a debate between any sides? (If we don't debate here, what are we moderating?)
Or if someone had question about the pitfalls of moderating debates in real life and the qualities required for such job, would it be considered an on topic question? How would it be different from asking about the pitfalls and qualities expected of a soccer referee? Would that question be on topic?
In short, can someone please explain to me how this could be interpreted as a valid Dharma question.

As it is written

If you hadn't closed it, and had not said anything, I doubt anyone who hadn't seen the exchange between the two of you on the other question would have thought twice about this one.

I hear you but I'm specifically asking someone for a detail explanation of how the question could be read like you say "it is written". I will edit my message to clarify what I'm asking about.

@Ryan since you were the main supporter of an "on topic" interpretation, can you reply?

To moderate is to try and leverage some degree of control over a thing. And without perfect wisdom, this act may be done out of greed, anger, or delusion, planting the seed for future becoming and suffering. And so with this is mind, the question is aimed to ask how one can best undertake this duty as a practitioner. How can one wisely moderate, within the parameters of the Buddha's teaching

"To moderate is to try and leverage some degree of control over a thing" - hmmm in my 15+ years living in the west I've never encountered this word used in this sense, can you give an example in sentence?

People moderate their food, alcohol consumption "all things in moderation", just off the top of my head

"In moderation" is a widely used pattern, sure. "To be moderate about something" too. But the verb form, "to moderate" e.g. food consumption - I'm not sure... Okay then, but if he used it in that sense, why would he bring up mediation vs judging, opinionless, and censorship? Doesn't make much sense to me...

Mediation vs judging as an approach to moderation I believe. Opionionlessness as being perfectly impartial in moderation, and censorship (to totally oppose and squelch something) as a contrast to the ideal of moderation, which I think most people generally think of as impartiality ( a moderator of a debate), and how the lines between these two might be blurred if moderation is not done with wisdom

This is just the impression I got at least

@Ryan Part of controlling a nuclear reactor is the "moderator": which "moderates" the reaction to keep it at the right temperature. It's not entirely about "control over a thing" though, IMO it's about self-control.

I think the question could be [mis-]interpreted as false dichotomies: either the moderators are repressive censors, or I should be allowed to post anything anywhere without moderation; either the moderators are claiming to be enlightened, perfectly wise, and able to read my mind, or they're ignorant and avaricious and aversive and under the influence of various defilements; either the moderators stick to the five precepts (which say nothing about being allowed to moderate/censor other people's writings), or if they delete what I write then that's like them killing and stealing etc.

This is an extreme Chris, not the middle way, as Samana Johann suggested; mediation vs judgement as an approach to moderation

And again, the question says nothing about moderators. This is your interpretation

@Ryan I still don't see how your last reply to me above explains how "moderation" in generic sense (of food/alcohol consumption etc.) can be connected with mediation, judging, opionionlessness and impartiality. Either he is talking about moderating the debates and these apply, or he is talking about moderating your own behavior and these make no sense.

It's all the same

@Ryan Is "mediation vs judgement" another dichotomy? Or is it suggesting something new and actionable? IMO we already have some "mediation" (e.g. editing for clarity, voting, comments, chat, and discussions on Meta). And we are all (users and moderators) expected to show some judgement (good judgement). We're meant to show understanding of some relatively complicated concepts like "be nice" and "on-topic" and "Q+A but not a discussion forum". And actually virtually all users of this site do (show judgement and self-moderation).

Why not have there be a default "filter of the moderators"? If someone wants to see an unmoterated view of the forum then they can choose "unfiltered". I don't know maybe we already have something like this. Also there can be many different filters depending on the users tastes. I myself would feel like a robot if I was moderating and saying the TOS made me do it.

@Uilium Now that your 'reputation' is above 2000 you can view deleted answers. In other words your account now has a 'unmoderated' or unfiltered view of the site. The one thing you can't see are deleted comments (but comments aren't supposed to matter much anyway).

Atma would say that Upasaka Ryan got a very clear impression an surely the main line is mentioned here. How ever, since it has met the level in being personal to much touched and not just challenged, Atma would say that this train had left the station already. So do not burden you to much with it, especially in regard of pasts.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Would it be of interest to get answers from Monks and Nuns?
Venerable visiting members of the monastic Sangha,
Valued lay community, Upasaka, Upasika,
Dear visitors and Bodhisattas,
As it just this thought just came to my mind:

Would it be of interest to get answers from Monks and Nuns, for the community and its members of SE-Buddhism?
Would it be of interest, as a community or for individual people, to assist a rendering of such?

[Possibly in any language, translation could be provided by those willing to do a service.]
Please, in the case of Ven. monastic members, this question can also be seen in regard of you, Ven. Sir or Sister:

Would Ven. Sir, valued Sister be willing to give answer in this here suggested way?"
Please feel heartily invited to contact my personal in which ever way you would prefer. Also valued Upasakas and Upasikas are heartily invited to forward it to their community and monastic teacher.

Background and Details:
Atma aware of the divergence in the ways of asking and answering questions: between today's common or usual way, and the proper rendering, in regard of addressing monks and nun; and gave this problem long-time thoughts and it's not easy to solve.
While in countries where Buddhism is a common culture, there would be always such as lay priests who watch and assist lay people in addressing monks properly, so that both would not have problems or objectionable situations, however such a culture does not exist in modern world.
Since the problem is twofold, that means on one hand there are few trained lay people who would assist and explain, and many monks and nuns sadly adopt the common way to give lay people a flavor (which in return does not motivate lay people to assist); and abandon several of their rules by doing that. It's a matter hard to overcome, but still not giving up this issue, Atma continues to find solutions for maybe a possible step by step change.
Its also common that against the reality of effects of stinginess those colored ways of thinking is very dominant and so the thoughts of sadly both lay people and monastics are mostly in regard of how to maintain and nourish the own family, gains, status and the Dhamma. It's of course a matter of strong bhava-tanha (desire for being and becoming).
The grain of the world is strong and of course it would be naively to think that such could be changed in large. How ever, it could touch in any case those who have certain kammic grounding and Nissaya with each other and general (some say paramis or "foreordination" to such).

Having given the environment and members of the community here a lot of investigation, and must say that it is technical (members' motivation to participate, and the structure of the way it is done, aside of background purposes of the whole thing) one of the most proper renderings Atma has ever personal seen in a larger form, Atma thought to raise the question (thinking with regard of serial approaches that there is certain interest and especially a great willingness for improvement) if the main serving community here, or even particular members would be interested in rendering such a service and assistance for both (that means also Atma takes it in trust that such a question is wished and would request to conform it or please reject it!).
Of course there are certain objectives which should be considered and it should be in no way cause especially holders of places like this any harm or disadvantage in their original purpose (thinking of gain of traffic, members, status and what ever). On the other had the objectives in regard of Dhamma Vinaya should be not overstepped.
A short sketch of how it could be done:
To give it a good ground of estimation maybe here a short sketch of how it could be done here:

People are informed that they could consciously raise the question (also) to the members of the Sangha.
They would mark it of make that known within their question
Either monastic or, even better, lay assistance would prepare the raised question properly (the use of the discussion section like used now would be totally great to figure out certain necessary adjustments) and then forward it (either registered or unregistered) into the monastery by simply making a new thread
The question will be received there generally or forwarded to particular monks and nuns who are willing to answer the question.
Having prepared and answer, they would be able to post it either personally or let the deliver place it there.
After that, the assistant of the community could either write a summary with a link of origination and/or post a simply a link to the answer, which would have been given in the Dhammatalks [dhamma desanā] forum public.
If further questions arise, it could either be improved in the same way or simply be worked out by raising a new question here on SE and following the same way.

Maybe useful renderings in regard of usual of discussions on the answers:

It would be good to keep it open for simply acknowledgements (like Sadhu or thanks.
It maybe good, since SE does not have much wish to discuss much and maintain the discussion, to start such in a particular form on sangham if such arises, with just a link from SE to that discussion.

It could be made either in the existing forum but it would be also possible to maintain a special forum within there, for particular communities of questions with certain moderation and administration possibilities and/or the community would get an own community account ("SE-Buddhism" for example, which would be hold by certain moderators here).
Of course also particular individual persons are always invited to take on such a task, which could be also independent of certain community agreements and purposes. To get the needed assistance and possibilities on sangham.net, which actually would not have much limits should be no problem.

The benefits of such:
For this particular community and its members:

Increasing quality answers form the best possible source
No special change of TOS or general usual are needed
Getting more in contact with the Sangha
Does not fear the weakening and disadvantage for certain of its own purposes, such as losing being frequented or losing members.
Not so great danger of getting answers which are giving possibilities to be corrupted.
Since naturally the presence and sayings of members of the Sangha have certain authority and but also indirect pressure, such would not disturb communities of lay people and such with with merely worldly purposes and put no unpleasant pressures on them. Keep them go their ways.
No need to learn much about the function of other systems while benefiting also form other communities
No skipping of the own community and know system needed and so no additional time spend if not wanted.
Most objective and serious answers because of their community independent rendering and no possible deals and favors with it.

For the Sangha, particular monks and nuns:

No compromises in regard of their rules are required
No need of danger to participate in a maybe improper way on certain lay community (no danger of corruption)
A permanent internet presence and involvement would be not necessary, and there would be no requirement to put too much time of maintaining one's door and existence into the world of internet.
Possible tuning and certain etiquette within the Sangha could be rendered without troubling other and confuse faith in certain ways (sangham.net has certain areas for Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis, which are off of publicity and not full ordinate members to carry out possible issues)
Certain support to be not in the danger of misinterpretation of the Buddha and his Dhamma
The reputation of the Sangha and particular members
No struggle with technology, availability, presents, maintaining and so more or same independency as before
Most possible care by lay people and monastic attendants
No worldly involvement and participation necessary
Email account and other access, if necessary can be provided by sangham.net as Dana in the frame of its given possibilities.
As told, it's not an easy and usual way since many things go against the grain, and there are of course reasons and forces who do not like to have such ways, and the reasons can all be found in the Saṅghabhedaka Sutta, which holds of course for both parts of the Buddhas fourfold community which is actually interdependent. That means both parts are able to change to a better is one part has fallen into wrong ways and that such appears depends on the tendency of both.

Which art least brings Atma to the last point, to the benefit of the particular assistant:

Simply measureless possibilities of practice on field and for sure a sublime field of merits in the way of:

Rendering assistance (Veyyāvaca)
Sharing the Dhamma (Iti 100), and
Uniting the Sangha and preventing the real Dhamma (which leads to heaven in any case).

Note: Of course it would be also good (and even perfect), even maybe not seen as necessary, to get certain acknowledgement also from the owner and holder of this environment personally (although one could just justify it by interpreting already given regulations) since such is the more proper way and one feels much more light and free knowing that things are really given without any even subtle doubt that one would cause somebody things he/she does not like to give.
Since Atma never make something strategical or tactical such as to prepare things in the background out of the range of publicity and in secret arrangements, a certain topic on Sangham has be opened as well: (Question and anwer pipeline between monastic and lay communities on internet). That has of course its disadvantage, since it is totally open to being opposed it by those who have "reason" to oppose it. How ever, it's never a battle, but possible for others to change ways to a good, and totally given to the actions of each individual including the effects for them. So in no way, even if it would be strategical wiser for a purpose, does Atma fall into the use of means, people with "reasons" are used to use. Just to let you know that this offering does not carry any dependency which could give ways to corrupt the Dhamma and totally depends on personal actions and will to give and skillful actions, one after the other.
If certain additional questions arise, please do not hesitate to ask where ever you feel that it is proper and good. If any renderings would be necessary or certain doubts or demur arises, do not fear any disadvantage when expressing such and be most critical, open and give and assume susceptibly.
As told before, this question is addressed to the community as a whole and also to the individual visitors and members. As for the community views and considerations, answers are best placed here. As for individual aspirations and answers, they could be placed in the forum as well. Even Atma prefers publicity (out of protection for all), but one can of course also send an email to samana.johann@sangham.net if there are certain fears or reasons why not using this or that public place.
Please let your answer be known, what you would be able and willing to give to make it possible.
Possible proper Ways to render it

*As a community usual:*Community gains an owns a community account and passes questions directly into the Open-Vihara forum on sangham.net and also repost the link and maybe a summary here as soon as the answer appears in the Dhammatalk-Forum (notification would be through automatically email by mentioning the account-user). "Venerable Members of the monastic Sangha. The community of SE has been confronted with this and that question. It would be good it the Ven. Members of the Sangha have the compassion to answer this question so that possible doubt and uncleanly could be erased..."
Individual user asks on behave of the community: (either as guest or taking a given account on sangham) same process but ways of notification would be useful when posting as guest. "Venerable Members of the monastic Sangha. In our community was asked this question... It would be good it the Ven. Members of the Sangha have the compassion to answer this question so that possible doubt and uncleanly could be erased..." (as a sample)
*As a Individual person having seen a question here on SE and willing to seek an answer by him self so that he/she could even share it here later. Same process, either as guest or having taken a given account on sangham. "Venerable Members of the monastic Sangha. Here an there I have seen this and that question and discussion. It would be good it the Ven. Members of the Sangha have the compassion to answer this question so that possible doubt and uncleanly could be erased..." (as a sample)

Possible alternative ways which need to have certain

The community invites to take on particular marked questions by monks, nuns or in this case maybe sangham.net to forward and answer it. The notification might be problematic. Also a certain agreement with the owner of this page seems to be necessary. It also would require some own effort by the answer or those who manage it outside of your community here and is maybe not so good served since it does not show so  much effort by the questioner.
Personally Inviting Monks or Nuns (best maybe Samaneras) to take on the delivering which would need certain exceptions of particular TOS here and also an invitation of the holder and owner of this site. It also is very dependent on the effort and discrimination of the person who acts and also shows more limited effort. Much involvement technical and others is needed by members of the Sangha.

Usual improper ways

Monks or nuns taking an account on trust (which knowingly or unknowingly) and act as they wish like lay people do in this or takt community which would go moslty against "taking what is not given" or "taking from the forest like villager do" or is open to critic as such; is mostly on unspoken agreements which are even against the TOS of the owner and does not bring much shine the reputation of the Sangha. Furthermore its not clear if the questioner even wishes such and if there are certain interests of socialization between members such a kind of going in between with an answer would be like disturbing husband and wife in there house which is also not proper and also a fault.

Informations about sangham.net:
The place was given more then three years ago by a certain lay person as a gift for the Sangha and has started its development when Atma was still a "anagarika" or wanderer with the purpose to make the internet accessible for monks and nuns who like to stick to Vinaya seriously and give them also a place to come together and use it as a social place in community issues. At this time Atma had no thought of ever joining the Sangha himself. It also is though to be a place of practice all 10 meritious deeds for lay people and make merits but not thought as a simply social platform where socializing is the main focus. Its also meant to make Sangha accessible for people who live outside of areas where Dhamma is practiced and borderlands.
Now Atma looks after it in behavior of the Sangha of the four direction but needs to be seen as simply a kind of monastic house keeper. The environment is placed on an Eco-server in Germany and the worldly ownership of it as well as the financial support to maintain this place is given by particular laypeople and those things are totally out of the range of the monastics. So generally there is no and never such as money or fundraising involved and hardly avoided. The rendering of its possibilities allow a use in according to the Vinaya if there is certain support on the side of the interface possibility of the individual monks and nuns, also the structure of the forum is generally laid out so that it can function like a real monastery. The Sangham - Dhamma Vinaya monastery is not associated with any particular school or tradition aside of the Buddhas Sangha of the four directions and its objectives are to stick in what ever possible way to Dhamma and Vinaya. There is also no such as censure or background systems. Even there are parts of the forum which are not open for everyone in advance, everything is actually transparent. Of course certain needed intimacy for ever particular group is maintained. Some Objectives can be seen here. The place, since it is a working and concentration place is a everlasting building side and not a static "it must be like that, that is it", so open for all generosity in improvement for everyone in his responsibility and inspiration. It's also not meant as a 'here and no where-else place', and is also done to give others certain ideas of how things can be made, so no exclusivity and like all things since the Buddha free to adopt and copy them if wholesome things are seen.
The possibilities are far more as now visible and nearly without limitations.
You should also know that sangham.net, or better Atma is not most beloved broadly since there is no such as censuring or taking part on this or that side and also speaks and discusses issues which are not beloved and go against the common grain.
Atma like to add that the general and long time function of sangham.net and this ways depends on the willingness of a participation of members of the Sangha directly and also on certain support of lay people on sangham.net. Atma is usually walking, does not hold anything aside of the most necessary, not to speak about fix support, money, telephon...  and keep most of the dudongas and it is merely "accidentally" that he has possibility to serve, what he does of course with joy and the mind set to the long lasting and benefit of the Sangha but not missing the nimitta and aspiration on Nibbana on this way. So Atma has to be seen as a part time entertainer till some sparks will light a useful fire. So sangham.net is Sangha property and not that of any more or lesser abbot or linage and the Sangha of the four directions has all rights to act, in line with Dhamma and Vinaya.

[Note in regard of the post here: Since Atma has not possibility to give it direct to a particular moderator to handle the given possibility with it as he wishes or to post in "meta", Atma putted it here. Although it could be good hold as a normal question, there should be no problem to bring it into the meta area. Sorry for eventual caused burdens and trouble with it anyway]

The a little rendered version of you rendering has been also shared on reddit-theravada: https://www.reddit.com/r/theravada/comments/429gar/would_it_be_of_interest_to_get_answers_from_monks/ right now.

I am sure some here will have interest in this,  however I think you will get a similar answer to what you recieved on Reddit here.

Actually Atma guesses no, this community is different. Did Mr. Hellyale read the whole with certain attention and discernment and has also a little observed whats going on there? Not to speak that they have a strange believe that even SE would control them... They have really problems and Atma did oblivious find no way to give some hints and tips as well as a possible way.
Atma works since about 3 years intensively on such things and its normal that of 1000 offerings one 1 or two matches people with certain wisdom and virtue.

How ever, the different here is obliviously that it is a place where people work and does not have just socializing as main focus like many communities online. The system here even supports a certain limitation of such and the most health for a community is to do not support PMs, like here.So things run open. But how ever, it has not the purpose to advertise any thing nor does it has the purpose to win a battle. The only though was "Its easy to left them simply behind and walk on" and that was the reason Atma followed the thought of this morning.

When Atma speak praise it has a reason and the same with blame. There is really no fear to lose something or a desire to gain something. Is much work and actually makes tired, still there are certain reminder so it runs, Mr. Bodhisattva ;-) So, Atma also leaves you here alone what ever you like to do with it.
Metta and Mudita

I no longer self identify as a bodhisattva or a Buddhist.  I returned my vows long ago.

:-) you would not even believe it your self, would you? Btw. great that you show face and even without hat. (so monk could easy teach you dhamma and do not need to fear to end up with a woman in a privat chatroom :-) and people take you more serious) Mudita and congratulation! Doors are open: [Yo so svākkhāto] bhagavatā dhammo, Sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko, Opanayiko paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi:

Not sure what you mean.  My interest in Buddhism remains, but I don't want confusion about my identity. My knowledge of the subject is from another time in my life, you might even say a past life within this life if you want to be metaphorical.

Atma would even say there is certain interest in Dhamma-Vinaya and Buddhism has also lost it's glimmer. :-) mudita is not out of reason and sadhu also not. Go and work, still much left to do and life is short and not for sure! The Bodhisattva notion falls when No-returner is reached, for the hard case ones.

i don't like the idea of a formalized way of conversation which reeks elitism and hierarchy creating gap between them and the rest of us. the community is open, any monastic with access to the Web is welcome to join the discussion and contribute on equal terms with everybody, which i certainly welcome

Баян Купи-ка but this actually communist approach does not fit to the way dhamma is talk since the Buddha, does not fit to Vinaya, give (from personal experiances) no freedom from remorse for monastics and given the TOS that everything is actually given to the side owner and the side owner has a contract to others, shows 1. that we do not really interact and 2. make it for a certain purpose that is business. At least selling Dhamma is a thief. Not to speak about maybe disturbing desires for coupling and socializing. So the postmodern and pseudo liberal approaches do not fit to Dhamma in line

with Dhamma Upasaka @БаянКупи-ка and many more things would also be reasons why a monks would be not allowed to teach. For example here in our case. 1. There are sign of disrespect and 2. seeing the Sangha for example not as refugee at the first place. 3. Denying that there is such as the foremost and 4. Atma does not even know your face, gender... The view of all are equal is hard wrong view and not the teaching of the Buddha. And you are actually not in the position to welcome anybody here. You are formal a consumer who get the right to use all here by feeding this place with content.

On the other side Atma understands that you are caught here and he also knows that people have been corrupted by monks who transport a more pleasing interpretation which fits better to the common wrong views pulling the dhamma down to the ways of strong defilement. And at least its not about gaining anything from the side of the Sangha or a monk, giving respect and make scarifies would not benefit the receiver but always only the giver and are the prerequisites of the training on the step by step teaching and training.

Upasaka (? if that can even be, if there is no refuge in the Sangha) is known that he opposites those things and even takes Dhamma Dana and make it to a sell able product, guided by certain monks, corrupter of families. You need to understand that actually all actions and talks Atma gives are really not pleasant for him, since there seems to be that things are not really given even if taken on trust. Once again, even members (contractors of the owner here) would be fine with it, that does actually play no rule, because its not in their sphere. And the thoughts

... here given, are simply a way to find a solution without detract any form the owners advantages nor of people caught here, since gaining other worldly pleasures and benefits here. To deny all this fact is simply silly anarchism which is not the way neither in Dhamma nor for the benefit in worldly measures. AND atma does not limit it to his person or any personal interest or deal, but simply offers a way (which is somehow of cause rightly called attachment) One could simply leave you alone, which is actually the reason, why you do not often meet wise people.Thats the nature of it when greedy

In the case you think that use it in an anarchy way and reject the responsibility for your action, as to post for example content, that does not fit to the license it requires, you should be aware of what you agreed. That's a matter of sila, stealing and lying not to speak of worldly legal effects of what you could think, nobody will charge, yet kamma does always. And so you, if you are wise, would consider all this thinks, and see that they are actually not against you but reasonable warnings & advises, yet seeking for ways to be fine f all

After all, if you observer it, it could already look like as if Atma is doing a service here for lay people, if not simply seen as a teaching by it self. So it, if done in the way of Dhamma in line of Dhamma, for the benefit of both lay people (so that they are not endangered to be corrupted by pleasing approaches) and monastics (that they do not appear as making service or even do it for certain flavors), it requires a invitation &/or the right situation (respect) that Dhamma can be taught for long time benefit, to maintain not only word but also way and to have actually a benefit in Dhamma.

Atma will try on trust (for now) a variant, which would fit would fit to the solely legal aspect. You may certainly see that even if legal o.k. the legal expression can carry intentions that do not fit to the rendering. The one way in copy on trust that a answer is wished, a question and thread it outwardly. (what was done here already).
What we (Atma) missed to point out is the fact, to tread a question is such a way, not just a entertainment, or for a livelihood, is actually a threading with high respect and earnestly toward the questioner.

not at all, it's actually a democratic approach, a principle on which decision making process in the Sangha is, or should be, actually based according to Vinaya and which is to a great extent forsaken in the South-East Asian Sangha.

Also this is wrong, democracy is just one tool (if problem come up, AND inside the Sangha, not between or even for lay people) of seven, AND should be only done, IF it is clear that the majority will vote in accordance with Dhamma & Vinaya. BMC1. Think your self, given that there are less with much dust in the eyes, what pure democracy would be? A leading in accordance of greed, hatred and delusion. Like it goes on, step by step in the world. Marked and greed rules and nobody likes to give in advance.

And it is also here on BSE, that it is good that there are moderators who hold power (in this case here specially, because they are wise and virtuous in some extend). Nevertheless, they give freely some good look at the community but would destroy the quality if they would not decide also different, sometime and this knowledge not available for everybody to judge good. Your ideas are simply a mix of liberal, postmodern, communism and free marked at the same time. A total greed approach, missing every basic right views.

Brahm gave such a sample, great insight, and then, thinking on own interests again its misuse: Two kinds of freedom - Insight and it missuses Such as rights claiming demanding... all this approaches, are terrible wrong views, thats a fact. And within a total democracy its even impossible for a Sangha to exists, since such as a owner/King is needed to give them a place and the ways they need. For sure we will soon have such as "monk right" but that is 100% a joke and long after death of the sangha and the transfer of the heritage of the Buddha.

...that there are less with much less dust in the eyes...

After even some Answers in a test of one of the possibilities having be deleted:

[Q&A] Meditation for Psychosis - Can Dhamma help for mental problems
[Q&A] Body feels like crying - Death of beloved

And not a little understanding of the matter nor basic respect can be found here, its seems like this question is solved.
How ever, Atma wishes you everything possible beneficial in terms of Dhamma and those who have faith and simply follow the path, will not have to fear that there is no light after a while giving in advanced.
Sadhu after all for all the supportive work which was made and much mudita with this deeds and merits.
However, the suggestion stands (and can be used for every possible pipe or connection) and will never fall and if you would find a member of the Sangha, you are good advised when you prepare the requisites, otherwise you will just get what you want and think that it is proper and will just open more doors for corrupter of families.
And so Atma likes to leave you a good piece of how to learn judging and find the path at least: The Power of Judgment and this is not the opinion of what those "community" runners are holdings as the Buddhas opinion we are friends in Dhamma, because we are equal worse.
At least, since it was obviously so that things have been taken on trust, which is really not the case or have certain stings attached, Atma needs to apologizes his disturbance here and leaves, giving all things back (my you do with it what ever you think that it is beneficial)
Ayu vanna sukha balam panna
(May you have a long life, beauty and credit, find all possible welfare and luck, may you never lack on effort and strength and finally since all that would be just temporary, may you find wisdom and insight so that liberation can be gained)

authors: Баян Купи-ка

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What to do when someone doesn't answer your question but only what they think you are asking?
On this thread I tried to go to some lengths to ask a specific question, and it was assumed that I was asking the exact question that appears in a sutta, despite my saying otherwise.
I did quote that sutta, but the question wasn't the same, it had two components:

how to interpret the reply in that sutta
is my interpretation right anyway.

But the three answers didn't seem to me to actually answer the question, only repeat that the self isn't "real".
I know that the self isn't real in Buddhism, nowhere was I suggesting otherwise.

I added to my answer on that thread if that's any help.

What to do when someone doesn't answer your question but only what they think you are asking?

Someone else asked a similar meta-question here: What shall I do if a question seems to go off the rails?
When you ask "what to do?", are you asking a general question about site policy, or are you asking a more specific question about how to get this specific question of yours answered?
I'll assume the latter.

On this thread I tried to go to some lengths to ask a specific question, and it was assumed that I was asking the exact question that appears in a sutta

The question has been anchored on three different texts, at different times (because it's been edited):

A misquote of what the Buddha said
A quote from an essay which implicitly (though not by name) referenced a sutta
An quote from an Encyclopedia

At a minimum it's fair to say that the question has changed.

I did quote that sutta, but the question wasn't the same, it had two components: how to interpret the reply in that sutta; is my interpretation right anyway.

Well, it is permissible for any user to only answer part of a question.
It's permitted on this site (more so than on other SE sites) to ask questions which aren't completely lucid and/or which some people don't understand: see Moderation policies for Questions, which says that we avoid closing questions where it's "unclear what you're asking."
A corollary to that (to not closing a semi-understood question) is that people may partially answer whichever parts of the question they think they do or might understand.
If most people answered only "how to interpret the reply in that sutta" maybe that's because that's the part of the question they understood.
Incidentally when I have asked questions I have sometimes asked, "this is my understanding, am I right or please correct me?"; but more often I ask, "I read this word used in such-and-such a place, tell me what does it mean?" The latter kind of question might be better (easier to answer), because it's asking people to understand and explain e.g. (more or less lucid) Buddhist scripture rather than asking them to understand and even argue with my (more or less muddled) personal misunderstanding and/or ignorance.
I for one didn't understand the second part of the question, which asked, "I was wondering if that above silence means that any dharma can fulfill the role of that empirical self"; for example,

I don't know/understand what "that empirical self" is
I don't know what "role" it "fulfills"
I also don't know what "silence means" (which reminds me, a line from a novel, "silence is a text that's easy to misread")
Nor why you might prefer or suggest an explanation for the silence, given that the Buddha gave his own explanation for his own silence towards the end of the referenced sutta.
Or you wrote, "he's still Adam" and I think, "Well apparently he's named 'Adam', you're calling him Adam, but what does it mean to say that he is?"

I'm not saying it's your fault I didn't understand it (maybe I should have understood it, maybe other people understood it), but I didn't, and that's why I didn't try to address it.
I'd already commented on the start of the question, which you semi-fixed: so I thought I could at least try to answer the first half of the question even if I didn't understand the second. I didn't want to just complain about the question without answering it. I also thought that if the second half of the question was based on any misunderstanding of doctrine referenced in the first half, then maybe clarifying the first half would make the second part moot.

But the three answers didn't seem to me to actually answer the question, only repeat that the self isn't "real". I know that the self isn't real in Buddhism, nowhere was I suggesting otherwise.

There are 5 answers now, and none of them that I can see (except maybe this answer and this comment) say that the self isn't real.
The question of whether there is a self kind of reminds me of this Zen story, which I think is more than just a joke (it's worth considering): Nothing Exists
If you'll forgive me, my poor joke on the subject would be something like this:

Doctor! Doctor! I have an arrow wound! It hurts, and especially when I touch it or play with it!
(Doctor:) Well, don't play with it then -- then it won't hurt like that.
It hurts if I touch it with my hand!
Don't touch it with your hand.
It hurts if I touch it with a screwdriver!
Don't touch it with a screwdriver.
I can see a hole, and it hurts if try to fill the hole with something.
Don't try to fill the hole with something.
It hurts if try to remove (cut out) the hole.
Well don't try to cut out the hole either. What part of "there is no view of self that would not lead to suffering" do you not understand?

As for the part of the question that I didn't understand,

An example would be: "Adam tastes the apple". Supposing this "taste" can be considered a kind of self, then if Adam  just tastes the apple, there is "continuity" and he's still Adam.

I think that Buddhism recommends against identifying with sensations, nor indeed with any of the 5 skandhas:

This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my atta.

Which, I don't know, does that contradict what you said, "It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that the skandhas can be identified as a self" in the OP.
I'm still not sure that I've understood your question, let alone answered it.


text:
Do theravada buddhists not think that the mahayana is buddhism?
It seems like some don't.
I do think that those who don't should be made not to post "no Buddhist says" etc., as it is highly misleading for a site which is meant to explore questions and answers on this topic

arguments from the 1st century without context :(

It seems like some don't.
Maybe it does seem like that.
Perhaps the title goes too far, I don't think I'd assume that all Theravada Buddhists do or don't think something based on what one or two people say.
Even so there may be some truth in it, see e.g. this interchange (in which Sankha is Theravada and Andrei Mahayana):

Theravada Buddhists don't really recognize other schools. Mostly historians do that. So it's just Buddhism for us. – Sankha Kulathantille
And we do recognize other schools, it's all Buddhism for us :) – Andrei Volkov♦

I do think that those who don't should be made not to post "no Buddhist says" etc.
If that's their considered opinion there may be a limit to how much we should "make them" not do it.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that some Buddhists do believe something:

As moderator, I'm inclined to draw the do-not-cross-this-line line at hostility: if a statement seems hostile or even mis-read as hostile, "no Buddhist says, anyone who says that can't be a Buddhist, and furthermore they shouldn't be allowed to post here", then I might say something.
However, and maybe more likely, perhaps the statement is some unawareness (of other schools). If it's not hostile it's not my business to correct every misconception in every answer.

As a user, if you find an answer "highly misleading" then you can post a comment to contradict, e.g., "Actually, the such-and-such school does say that." I hope that if you do your comment should be friendly, intended to avoid misleading readers and/or to inform the OP, trying to add to their answer rather than to take away from it, not to start some kind of sectarian argument about who might be right or wrong.
There have been many discussions here on Meta over this kind of topic -- for example I recommend:

Overt Sectarian Affiliations
Sectarian shout downs should be dealt with
Theravada and Mahayana
How to ask questions about different traditions of Buddhism?
May people criticize other schools of Buddhism?
Are we here to preach and make converts?

I also encourage you to 'flag' any post or comment which seems to you hostile. A flags can be helpful, because moderators don't necessarily read or notice everything?


text:
un-upvote an answer without downvoting?
My perception about the quality of an answer may change from positive to neither positive nor negative. The answer is subject to change as well. In either case, one might want to un-upvote the answer, however, it seems it only seems possible either upvote an answer or downvote an answer. Is un-upvoting a possible feature or privilege to unlock?

You click on the up-arrow to upvote an answer: and click on the up-arrow again to cancel the upvote.
See Is there a way to cancel upvote on answer / question?

If I try to un-upvote an answer which I previously upvoted days ago, I see a popup message like,

You last voted on this answer at [date and time]. Your vote is now locked in unless this answer is edited.

In summary:

After I upvote a answer I have a finite time during which I can change my mind and un-upvote it
After that time (I'm not sure how long it is, maybe only 5 minutes) I am not able to un-upvote
If the answer is edited again after you upvote it, then un-upvoting becomes possible

If you edit the answer yourself then you'll be able to un-vote it (but doing that seems a bit hostile and should usually be avoided).


text:
Is this a Buddhist forum or is this a Theravadin forum?
As an eclectic universalist one of the things that attracted me to this forum is its apparent embrace of all Buddhist schools and all points of view without discrimination. However, after participating in the forum for some time it has become apparent to me that some Theravadins in this group seem to take upon themselves the notion that only their school is valid and all others are false, and consistently answer questions that are not about Theravada from a Theravadin perspective, and then comment on or otherwise disparage any other point of view as non-Buddhist, when it is simply non-Theravadin.
I am also seeing the same individual or individuals consistently responding to certain posts in a hostile or derogatory way, which makes me wonder if they are also following non-Theravadins with the intention of harassment. Their consistent answer to any questioning or challenge to this form of sectarian dogmatism (prohibited by the Buddha, BTW) is simply to say, "Theravada says this. Anything else is not accepted by Theravada," as though that response were sufficient. I see this as a great danger to the integrity of this forum, since it amounts to a form of verbal guerilla warfare that has the potential to drive non-Theravadins away, which is perhaps the intention, thus converting the forum to a Theravadin forum. What is the policy of this forum toward these individuals?

I have decided that here is not appropriate for me to make any question or answer. As a fully-accomplished master of the Mahajrya tradition, I expected there to be at most polite disagreement in a forum dedicated to Buddhism, as it is with similar sites. But there is little politeness or even correct discipline here. Downvoting is a matter of agreement, rather than scholarship. Alternate viewpoints are completely unwelcomed. Criticism is received as if it's a personal attack. It is given in the same light. Dogma rules here. And so I'm out. Have a nice life, folks.

Just for the perspective, here are a few posts from Christianity S.E struggling with similar issues: Christianity.SE vs. Survivor, and also Brothers, we are not christians! and how to handle comment trolls

Is this a Buddhist forum or is this a Theravadin forum?

Let me say this very clearly.
This is a forum about Buddhism meaning that all affiliations are welcome.

Notice that there's the fact of the bias of the user population. Many traditions here are under represented, if at all (e.g. it's a rare thing to see a Zen thread or Shin). Not because at some point in history there was a schism -- actually, there were discussions in the past on how to bring more diversity. However, some individuals that came later from non-theravada traditions did face difficulties.
Then, many are dissatisfied when they come here and realize not all users are so open-minded about different forms of Buddhism. But some users may not even know there are other traditions with teachings that seem strange to them.
Furthermore, one might say that the Buddha rejected dogmatism, but at the same time, there are a number of examples from buddhist scriptures of people being corrected (by the Buddha or his disciples) after showing their understanding was incorrect and being warned to not misrepresent what the Buddha taught. Then, it's not difficult to see how people see this as a tempting authorization to do the same (or even to go out of their ways to do it).
Even though the community has stated that different buddhist traditions are welcomed, these problems seem to be raised from time to time. Though it's not that common (perhaps once a year?), some of them can be an actual problem and off putting to many. Is it something that needs change? Any suggestions?

What is the policy of this forum toward these individuals?
I think the policy has been to tolerate or welcome such a statement.
Consider this interchange from 2015 (in which Sankha is Theravada, and Andrei Mahayana):

Theravada Buddhists don't really recognize other schools. Mostly historians do that. So it's just Buddhism for us. – Sankha Kulathantille
And we do recognize other schools, it's all Buddhism for us :) – Andrei Volkov♦

One of the reasons I find it easy to tolerate is that Sankha says such a thing only when he's prompted to, by other people commenting on his answers: e.g. here the 'provocation' is Lanka telling him to say that his answer is "based in Theravada Buddhism", and here it was you saying, "Theravada Buddhism is just one school of Buddhism; it is not Buddhism".
If you're allowed to define what Buddhism is, I think Sankha is too!
Such a comment might easily be seen as hostile, if he were to go out of this way to post it under someone else's answer, but he doesn't: it's an explanation of his own answer.
Actually I find it admirable (and helpful): explaining his own perspective, without attacking other people's answers.
As moderator I will generally sympathise with the author of an answer. If the author of an answer flags a comment (as hostile or not constructive) then I'm inclined to delete the comment. Thus you can post answers, and I'll help to protect your answers and end any unwanted arguments about them. Similarly Sankha is welcome to post answers too.
One of the things that avoids "verbal guerilla warfare" is the emphasis on Q&A, i.e. the emphasis on people writing their own answers. You can ask use comments to ask people to clarify their answers, but comments may be deleted if they don't improve the answer.
Generally it's the author of each answer who's allowed the last word.
consistently answer questions that are not about Theravada from a Theravadin perspective
The convention we've established on this site is to use school-specific tags. For example if you use a school-specific tag (mahayana, zen, vajrayana, tibetan-buddhism, secular-buddhism, etc.) then only answers from that school are on-topic.
Using such a tag might signal that you don't want Theravada answers to your question.
It might be unusual to do that, though, when you're asking a question about Pali texts. Given that you are asking about Pali texts I think it's easy to see how someone might think you were interested in a Theravada perspective.
If you don't use such a tag, that's a signal you're inviting answers from any/all schools.
I hope this meta-answer helps. I suppose that a purpose of using tags is to let people post questions without getting hostile answers, and moderating comments is to let people post answers without getting hostile comments.

How do I respond directly to a moderator in private rather than in public?

Consummatum est.

The moment I had the ability to create a tag, I was downvoted out of it with -12 votes with something that was a core teaching of my tradition. It's all dogma and competition, here. So, I'm leaving. (Reiterating in case it's not clear above).

@VishwaJay I'm sorry I didn't have time to answer your question, and to moderate if that was necessary -- I've been busy because I've had guests to stay for a few days.

I understand. the shortcoming isn't merely a personal matter of your moderation, but of lacking application of Buddhist discipline on the part of the community here. I don't blame you for any lack on the part of the group. It's just not fruitful for me to try to have a discussion with people who can't comprehend what I've spoken about other places because of a lack of such discipline. Maybe I'll be back. Maybe I won't. But for now, it's not productive.

@VishwaJay are you referring to this question? If it is, while it's clear people objected to it's contents  (and whether they should or not is a discussion for this thread), I think it's a problem to expect users on this site to assume there is a school named Mahajrya which teach in the way you put it -- you must clarify. Also, the downvotes were not explained. Not all of them were a rejection of your school (I downvoted for seeing it was intended to "exercise").


text:
The blind leading the blind
Stack Exchange is undeniably an authority on coding and other technical things, but Buddhism isn't like intellectual disciplines where knowledge makes you an authority. Buddhist teachings are an expedient to get us to enlightenment (as per the metaphors of the menu and the meal, the finger and the moon etc.). Intellectual understanding of the teachings is not the point.
A reasonable degree of enlightenment is considered a sine qua non for teaching in most schools. If you aren't enlightened, how can you possibly guide others to enlightenment? What's the use of parroting dogma you haven't realised the import of (especially if you do so with a big reputation and an air of authority)? Are you helping people or misleading them?

Are you asking for information, asking for an answer? This seems a rhetorical question: is it intended as a criticism of the whole site's existence, of one or two specific answers, or of some specific users? If you were to rephrase your statement as a suggestion for improvement instead of as a question, what would you say: are you saying that people on this site are misleading, and that (instead of using this site) everyone who isn't enlightened should instead find a teacher with a reasonable degree of enlightenment, who teaches in a school?

You tagged this topic [tag:discussion] but I don't know what you want to discuss. Some topics on meta discuss questions ("what's a good or bad kind of question on this site?"), and sometimes topics discuss answers ("what's a good or bad answer?"), and sometimes comments, and sometimes users. But the way you started your topic, do you want to discuss whether "Buddhism" (perhaps instead of e.g. "enlightenment") is an appropriate subject for a stack exchange site?

Or the word "authority" appears three times in what you wrote. Is your question then about authority: is it something to do with "authority" that you want people, that you're asking people, to try to answer?

Do you disagree with any of the points? Authorisation is important. In most schools monks spend many years training before they teach. Here any self-appointed expert can teach. Doesn't that strike you as incongruous? Why is authorisation to teach handled so stringently in traditional schools?

I think that, maybe, if I were to disagree, it would be because I was answering a different question. I guess you're fixed on a question (or if not a question, an axiom) like, "Is a teacher important? Enlightenment? Authority?", and you're answering that. If I were to "disagree", by giving a different answer, that might be because I was answering a different question: for example, "Why questions and answers on Stack Exchange? What kinds of questions, what kinds of answers? What are benefits and/or limitations of Stack Exchange as a format/medium?"

'What kinds of question, what kinds of answer' would be a good starting point for a new discussion.

Do you want me to try to answer this question anyway? Or are you content that you've had your say on the subject? Do you want to start a new discussion (as a different meta-topic), do you want me to try to start one for you? Are you more interested in what questions can be asked, or are you more interested in how to answer questions without misleading people?

i don't know how many people are turning to stackexchange for enlightenment, probably quite a few ha.

I think there are several misunderstandings here.
First, I wouldn't say Stack Exchange is any authority on coding or programming. It's useful, with grains of salt, at best. Not different from this one.
Second, you say that there's a purpose to Buddhism as declared by the Buddha and challenge the appropriateness of this site to guide people to enlightenment. You also say that intellectual understanding of the teachings is not the point (the purpose) of Buddhism. I fully agree with these words, and I believe many (perhaps most) users here agree too.
However, you seem to imply that this site (and/or people here) are guiding and teaching others to enlightenment. You also seem to imply that knowledge seems pointless in this endeavor, and that an unenlightened person should not be occupied with sharing information until he has accomplished the goal. Finally, you seem to assume that only people interested in enlightenment come here to participate.
If the above is a correct assessment, all these points are not true nor beneficial.

While some people here may think of themselves as teachers and may think of their questions and answers as teaching, others write questions and answers just with the intent of obtaining and sharing information so they can better inform themselves and other readers, absent the presumption of guiding people to enlightenment.
as pretty much any other activity, intellectual knowledge of the Dharma is a requisite for the practice of Buddhism. Knowledge, indeed, has a larger role than assumed, regardless if one is just a practitioner or a scholar. Moreover, this knowledge not only can be shared, clarified and discussed through language and ordinary words, but (as far as we understand the history) have been done pretty much like this by the Buddha and his disciples.
It's a fantasy to expect that only enlightened people can teach anything Buddhism and everyone else should be silent about all of it. Normal people can certainly clarify things like what the noble path is, what is meant by first noble truth, and what are the seven factors of enlightenment without being enlightened. The same goes for any other field: it's a fantasy to expect to be taught mathematics only by fully graduated mathematicians when a non-mathematician on our side can help us with something we don't understand.
Buddhism is not only a means to enlightenment: it's more than "Dharma". It's a (or perhaps many) religion and cultural phenomenon. It has a history. It embodies philosophies. It has been written in ancient languages. It spawned forms of art (sculpture, paintings, poetry, etc). All of these are embraced by intellectual fields of investigation. A buddhist practitioner may think less of these things, but it's not on his/her power to prevent people from being interested and study them.

So, one way of thinking about this S.E. site is as an authoritative guide for awakening. Which is not.
Another way, which I personally find preferable, is a useful site where people can raise questions and get some information or initial pointers for further investigation, be them buddhists expecting to clarify a doctrinal or practical point, be them non-buddhist expecting to clarify their understanding of the religion, be historians, buddhologists, art history students, philosophers, etc.

Buddhism isn't like Mathematics in that respect. You need to know where the noble eightfold path leads to clarify what it really is, otherwise all you can do is parrot what you've read in books. I'm not saying that knowledge is pointless, I'm saying that advice about the meal from someone who hasn't yet eaten is pointless. All Buddhist practitioners and scholars have contributions to make, but you shouldn't assume the mantle of a dharma teacher if you're not one. Shakyamuni shared his seat with Makakasho and not Ananda for a reason.

I also think that SE Buddhism paints and overly intellectual picture of Buddhism. Buddhism is primarily a practice carried out in a sangha under the guidance of a teacher, but I've only seen one answer suggesting that the questioner seeks out a monastery/practice centre. That should be the default answer to almost every question - find a local centre and ask a teacher.

Well, "parroting" is precisely how the suttas (and Buddhism itself) survived :) -- I'm sorry this site falls short of your ideal of how all matters of Buddhism should be engaged and that you think all participation here should restrict themselves to tell people to find a center and a teacher.

Parroting isn't how Buddhism survived, that's the point of the Makakasho/Ananda reference - Ananda knew the sutras by heart (he's the 'I' in 'Thus have I heard...') but he wasn't the Buddha's successor as he wasn't enlightened.

@GavinSerra sorry I wasn't clearer. The "parroting" I alluded to was a reference to the tradition of verbatim memorization and repetition of the suttas. But please understand, myself coming from the Zen tradition, that I'm sensitive to your concerns . However, this site really is just another internet site, where people subject to mistakes come to participate. Some may join and use it for teaching and even come across as self promoting,  dogmatic and disrespectful. But others here are just interested in getting some pointers or pointing out some directions to others looking for one.

Just to give some extra perspectives from other S.E. religion sites:
Christianity
In the Christianity S.E. site, they discourage "advice on how to handle certain situations (pastoral advice questions)". They discussed this issue and even upvoted a standard comment message to questions that seek such advices in their meta site.
Judaism
In the Judaism  S.E. site, they adopted an information box with a disclaimer where it says:

Islam
In the Islam S.E. help center, they added a more serious warning:

It is also important to note that this is not a fatwa site. While questions on the legality of actions (from an Islamic perspective) are welcome, answers may be posted by anybody regardless of training or expertise. It is important to judge the evidences provided by each answer to the best of your own abilities, and accept such answers at your own risk.

ah great answer, which complicates my view i expressed below. hmm. do we have any such equivalent message, on this site??

Hi. I don't think we have messaging here.

I have felt the same way at times, and the answer about "excess of personality" maybe also. But over a long stretch of time, reading many questions and answers and comments, I see this more as a sangha, with great people in it. My respect for them has grown.
People learn in different ways, and although SE in general is mostly conscious / verbal / rational thought process, the more feeling oriented way is hard to put in to a web site, but is understood and respected here. I don't think anyone is saying that words and book knowledge are sufficient, but at least here they are available, interactively (by being able to ask questions).
Many times I have said "please seek out a meditation teacher." Nothing can stand in for that.

that's a good attitude.

i like the idea of assuming that other people are sincere and have things in common with you. but, it often seems people want to demonstrate --
what -- dogmatic dismissal of anything they didn't feel a connection to yet? we have 2,500 years of tradition and its adherents, many of whom are saints, dharmaheirs, have defeated death... so, be careful :)

I think it's a viable concern. With the internet being so pervasive etc., many people will turn to sites like stackexchange not just to find out about Buddhism, but for enlightenment.
But, the former is what the site is about, and I personally think that it's OK, that those who have studied Buddhism, even just a little, can tell us what about what they "know".
For what it's worth, my bugbear about the site is the excess of personality. The nature of the medium means people are going to be here to promote their own peculiar beliefs etc., as well as try to put down opposing views (see what I did there?). That's why the voting system is so important, and I urge anyone who has voting privileges to vote down any answer which implies that Buddhism is categorically this, despite what many of its proponents have claimed, over the course of its life.

Right. A car is about getting somewhere. The MotorVehicles SE doesn't get you anywhere, and few of the contributors are Master Mechanics, but it is still a useful site.


text:
Rename this site 'metta'?
I thought it would promote better interactions if we changed 'meta' to metta. Realistically, having more compassion and perspective is what meta means, anyway.

I disagree, since in the context of SE, "Meta" is not a Pali word. It comes from the Greek prefix. The same prefix is used in 'meta-physics' (what goes beyond physics), 'meta-literature' (the study of the study of literature), 'meta-linguistics', etc.
As Wiki says:

Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after", or "beyond") is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction behind another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

Of course, changing 'meta' in 'metta' would be a somewhat funny pun most would probably understand, but it would in fact not convey the meaning of the Greek and I don't think it's all it takes to promote loving kindness and compassion.

Well, it was worth a try. But metta is "after or beyond" where many people feel that they currently are, so it seems applicable that way.

That would indeed be a feature-request -- i.e. it is not something which moderators can edit/implement, and it would instead require the SE site designers/developers/operators to make that change.
There have been more than 20,000 feature request topics on SE. Now it's not that they don't implement any, and clearly they do implement some (nearly 3,000 of those 20,000 are tagged "status-completed")  -- but I've never seen one being proposed and then implemented.

While I agree fully with Tenzin Dorje's post I want to add that the meta-name/function is considered a core element within the Stack Exchange Network that needs to remain streamlined across SE's.
As an SE we are pretty open to changes but this is a bit too radical IMO.
Thanks for the suggestion though.

Maybe metta should also be a core element in SE :-)